MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Travelling-light

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21
1
Shutterstock.com / Re: Anyone get paid from SS yet?
« on: February 06, 2021, 13:51 »
Yes, arrived in Payoneer on Friday evening, UK time.

Colin

2
Ouch! We had 426 refunds and 479 sales from Canva, net loss there of $58.42 for the month. Average RPD on iStock from them is down from $0.39 to $0.22 with the new pricing.

Canva turned us down as direct contributors - not the right content for their customers...

3
I think the Form 8822 is only for US residents. If you normally submit W-8BEN forms for agencies, the only way to change details is to phone the IRS in business hours. I've done this a couple of times and the International Taxpayer Service Call Center are very helpful. Ring +1 267-941-1000 and they should sort you out. Waiting times are very short.

If you just submit a new W-8BEN to an agency with your new address it will be rejected if it doesn't match IRS records.

HTH,
Colin

4
MicrostockSubmitter / Re: < 7 title words - Bigstock
« on: August 24, 2018, 11:42 »
Don't worry, I've done what I should have done in the first place - asked Stock Submitter direct.

5
MicrostockSubmitter / < 7 title words - Bigstock
« on: August 24, 2018, 08:24 »
Suddenly I can't upload most of my files to Bigstock, as they mostly have less than 7 title words. I haven't had this problem before. Bigstock say they don't need titles at all. What is the problem, can anyone help?

6
Shutterstock.com / Re: New submission editor page
« on: November 14, 2017, 10:39 »
I haven't read all the comments in this thread, but there seems to be a lot of criticism of the new submissions page.

I have to say, I am really impressed with it. IMO, it is a vast improvement on the old one.

I like the way we are able to enter words and place names, if it doesn't recognise them we can mark as correct and they seem to be added to a dictionary.

It no longer questions every single number, such as in a date, so editorial is much easier to upload.

I can think of other sites who could take a lesson from SS.

All they had to do for that was to update the dictionary.  There was no need to knacker the whole system. 

Curious:  Do you use a mobile or desktop computer?

I ask because I really think Shutterstock is trying to drive the old timers away.  We make more per sale.  Newbies start at a lower rate.  It's a corporate move other companies have made. 

The combination of re-tooling the site toward mobile devices and advertising under the "gigs" section of Craigslist suggests to me that Shutterstock wants to be the Wal-Mart of stock sites.

I wouldn't be surprised if they have people going around to laundromats pinning hand written ads on the bulletin boards.

Uploaded on a lap top, submitted on a desk top. I'm an old timer, SS number 280. November 2004.
There are things about SS that aren't that impressive, eg the new front page, which took away just about everything I wanted and gave me lots I didn't. Then ignored me when I asked why in the forum.
However, I never liked the old SS submit page, and I do prefer this new one. It was a long time coming, but it's here now. Which sites have a better submission process? Tell me, I'm interested.

7
Shutterstock.com / Re: New submission editor page
« on: November 13, 2017, 07:49 »
I haven't read all the comments in this thread, but there seems to be a lot of criticism of the new submissions page.

I have to say, I am really impressed with it. IMO, it is a vast improvement on the old one.

I like the way we are able to enter words and place names, if it doesn't recognise them we can mark as correct and they seem to be added to a dictionary.

It no longer questions every single number, such as in a date, so editorial is much easier to upload.

I can think of other sites who could take a lesson from SS.

8
Alamy.com / Re: New uploader stinks
« on: June 01, 2017, 13:21 »
Something has changed since earlier in the year, in that with a Wacom stylus, I find it extremely difficult to click on the exact pixel in the star to promote a tag to a supertag, in case at some time it matters. It is slowing me up no end, and is a known 'thing'. Clearly it wasn't tested by a range of creatives, 'apparently' it's OK with a mouse. (I know some people prefer mice).

It isn't OK with a mouse. I have to hit the star 3-4 times to get it to work. I even bought a new mouse, to see if it helped.  I have trouble with my wrists, due to all the mouse work I do, and this is not helpful.  I have had contact with Contributor Relations today, and apparently there are no plans to change it.
They also say that Supertags are working as intended.

9
So they want us to upload photo ID to an insecure site we've never heard of? After several years of selling through Pond5?

Malice or incompetence? Take your pick.

10
Symbiostock - General / Re: Symbiostock script - VAT, TAX question
« on: February 18, 2014, 19:25 »
We would be interested in buying such a plugin, as long as it can be configured for the slightly less onerous New Zealand/Australian tax requirements.

We need to label the tax GST and not VAT. Also, customers don't have to give their tax registration number.

Otherwise, sounds good!


11
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Mirrorless Camera
« on: February 15, 2014, 17:27 »
I think mirror-less is a great innovation in the technology aspect, I've always been worried about dust getting into my camera and onto the mirror thus ruining my images. I think it is quite costly however, So before I switch over to the newer technology I would like to see a significant price drop first.

Dust on the mirror has absolutely no effect on the image as the mirror only affects the optical viewfinder. Dust on the sensor is the problem, and is exactly the same for mirrorless cameras. Fixed mirrors have some advantage here, as the dust image will be very diffuse.

Also, one of the advantages of mirrorless cameras is that they can be cheaper than good conventional mirror systems.

12
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Mirrorless Camera
« on: February 13, 2014, 14:05 »
We tried the Sony A7 at our local shop and were totally underwhelmed. It's a long time since I've seen a lens as bad as the 28-70 kit lens. Very soft compared with our usual 5D2/24-105, and doesn't sharpen up much in ACR. The handling's nothing special, either, not even as good as the Canon.

We've been using the Panasonic GH2 with 14-42 kit lens for a couple of years as our off-duty camera, and had no trouble producing usable stock photos with it.

13
General Stock Discussion / Look at these photos on Flickr....
« on: January 24, 2014, 14:59 »

14
Shutterstock.com / Re: S J Locke Uploading to Shutterstock
« on: January 22, 2014, 21:37 »
For all of Getty's faults (and there are many) they did try to raise the value of our assets while SS went in the opposite direction.

That's utter bollocks. SS never 'went in the opposite direction' on the value of our assets, as you put it. They have never decreased prices and they have never decreased contributors' royalties either ... unlike Istock and Getty. They just weren't so stupidly greedy and short-term as Istock/Getty and therefore have allowed their contributors to build a stable and sustainable income. I've been with SS for over 9 years and I am absolutely delighted with the growth and the relative stability of my income from them. Their website actually works too and I have never had a 'customer refund' or 'clawback' of income from them either. Your exalting of Istock/Getty has to be a joke, isn't it?.

Anyway, more fool you for believing in the Istock/Getty hype and thinking that prices could just double every year to make up for the painfully obvious fall in the volume of sales that resulted. You think that you and your precious images are worth far more than you are getting ... but you are wrong. They are worth what the market decides they are worth and Istock/Getty cannot actually change that, whatever pricing architecture they choose to employ. The market will always 'out', especially one in which supply so obviously exceeds demand.

They used to pay 40% and they now pay "around" 30%. Economical with the truth Gostwyck?

Who did? Can you substantiate your statement with links to prove your point?

SS of course. I have it somewhere, I know that for sure because you sent it to me. I'll have a look.

There's another one too - a post from you where you praised IS for raising prices - "going in the right direction" if I remember rightly. It's in the forum somewhere, maybe Luis can find it for us.

Just call me Jumbo :)

15
Shutterstock.com / Re: S J Locke Uploading to Shutterstock
« on: January 22, 2014, 21:12 »
For all of Getty's faults (and there are many) they did try to raise the value of our assets while SS went in the opposite direction.

That's utter bollocks. SS never 'went in the opposite direction' on the value of our assets, as you put it. They have never decreased prices and they have never decreased contributors' royalties either ... unlike Istock and Getty. They just weren't so stupidly greedy and short-term as Istock/Getty and therefore have allowed their contributors to build a stable and sustainable income. I've been with SS for over 9 years and I am absolutely delighted with the growth and the relative stability of my income from them. Their website actually works too and I have never had a 'customer refund' or 'clawback' of income from them either. Your exalting of Istock/Getty has to be a joke, isn't it?.

Anyway, more fool you for believing in the Istock/Getty hype and thinking that prices could just double every year to make up for the painfully obvious fall in the volume of sales that resulted. You think that you and your precious images are worth far more than you are getting ... but you are wrong. They are worth what the market decides they are worth and Istock/Getty cannot actually change that, whatever pricing architecture they choose to employ. The market will always 'out', especially one in which supply so obviously exceeds demand.

They used to pay 40% and they now pay "around" 30%. Economical with the truth Gostwyck?

16
Shutterstock.com / Re: S J Locke Uploading to Shutterstock
« on: January 22, 2014, 20:28 »
Gostwyck, in this case the market hasn't decided - SS has, and they admit it. Haven't you read the comments which GBAlex has posted so many times? They have chosen to price our images low to win market share.

No one is defending IS, and no one thinks their are images are precious. We all know the market is saturated. Our images are nothing more than the Pawns being swept around and off the board as the Kings slug it out.

17
Shutterstock.com / Re: S J Locke Uploading to Shutterstock
« on: January 22, 2014, 19:39 »
As an indy a very sketchy levelling off of the dramatic drops experienced in 2012 with the same port, no where near the highs of 2010.

I would have stayed as an exclusive but it became impossible to dig out of the decline with new work as no one ever viewed it or bought it. Don't see it changing over there either with the massive ingestion of new files.

Now I'm part of the problem selling my work for chump change and increasing pressure on the remaining exclusives.

The future is in Oringer's hands, unless he raises the prices or tiers the collection he'll break the business model for many full time photographers.

Thanks for the comments. I have to agree.

18
Shutterstock.com / Re: S J Locke Uploading to Shutterstock
« on: January 22, 2014, 19:05 »
Once sold 5 ELs in one day at IS, for over $500 total, back in the good old days...BDE.

Used to get regular $300 days at iS in 2010 with no EL's.

Anyway back on topic Woo Yay for 38c sales.

What are you making now, if you don't mind saying? Send a site mail if you like.

19
Shutterstock.com / Re: S J Locke Uploading to Shutterstock
« on: January 22, 2014, 15:52 »
Once sold 5 ELs in one day at IS, for over $500 total, back in the good old days...BDE.

20
When you prepare a food shot and decide it's not worth the bother of photographing it, and just eat it hot instead.

21
Shutterstock.com / Re: How are sales going?- Shutterstock
« on: January 20, 2014, 15:53 »
While those graphs on SS are interesting, they are not accurate. I have brought this to SS's attention a number of times with specific examples and they brush me off every time saying that the reported sales are accurate (the reports that we get paid off of).

Try making a set of all of your images and compare those sales to your reported total, I also have made sets of images submitted by year and compared them to the sales from the last year at the end of every year - they are not equal.

That's a pity. I've made some decisions based on those graphs. Oh well, too late now.

22


I have owned and sold two copies of the 24-105L.  That lens sucks.  It sucks light out of things.  I've been walking through Downtown Denver at 10am in the Spring and have had to up iso to 400 because the lens just sucks light.



Laugh? I thought I'd never get my trousers dry!

23
Hello,

Another vote for the 24-105.

I've got the 24-105 kit lens and I've got to say - between the Mark III's low-light capability and the image stabilization, it's a great combination as an all-around lens that lets you shoot hand-held in a wide variety of lighting situations.

...

Best,

Scott

Sure the focal range is better than the 24-70 and therefore has more "benefits" as a walk-around-lens but I'm wondering whether the the 24-105mm produces shallow "enough" depth of field?

I have gotten used to shooting in the 1.8 to 2.8 range with my 50mm prime and love it. Additionally the 24-70 will make life a little bit easier in the lower ISOs I would think. Although I've heard about the great low light performance of the Mark III, I still prefer shooting with ISO as low as possible (as long as I can fully open the lens of course).

Hope this makes sense.

It's all a matter of how you work. We shoot 90% of our outdoor work with the 24-105 at f/11, or maybe f/8 once in a while.  Most of the rest is with the 16-35 II. We had the 17-40 when we had the original 5D, but as soon as we got the 5D2 we had to upgrade.

24
General Stock Discussion / Re: .
« on: December 19, 2013, 22:56 »
It's been so popular, I may start a new one every week.  Maybe # followed by * ......I could go on and on....

25
General Stock Discussion / Re: .
« on: December 16, 2013, 12:36 »
STOP IT!
STOP IT!
STOP IT!
STOP IT!

I hate it when vitual people talk behind my vitual back . . .

Y?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors